ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed for enforcement of Fundamental Rights of Shia Muslim Community in Telangana, particularly regarding adequate representation, appointment of an MLC under the Governor’s quota, and redressal of persistent grievances affecting the community. 1.1. It is stated, Petitioners belong to Shia Muslim Community of Telangana, a distinct sect within Islam comprising approximately 10 lakh persons in the State. The said community has historically contributed to the cultural and social fabric of Telangana; despite its population and contributions, the community faces systemic neglect in welfare, institutional support and representation in public affairs. Petitioners claim to be the office-bearers of “Shia Civil Council for Social Justice”, a registered organization dedicated to upliftment of Shia Muslims. 1.2. The core grievances of petitioner are: a) there is lack of adequate representation of Shia Muslims in government bodies and decision-making forums, including absence of any Shia voice in the Telangana Legislative Council under Article 171(3)(e); b) failure of the State and its agencies to provide dedicated institutional support such as separate educational institutions, welfare schemes, burial grounds, and community centres, despite constitutional protection for minorities; c) discrimination and marginalisation in management of religious endowments — the Telangana State Waqf Board has not created any mechanism or separate section for Shia Waqf matters, resulting in mismanagement and exclusion of Shias from Waqf administration; d) inaction by authorities despite repeated representations and multiple directions issued by this Court asking the Respondents to consider Petitioners’ grievances. 1.3. It is stated, Petitioners made formal representations to Respondents on 27.12.2022 and 03.02.2024; since no action was taken, they filed Writ Petition No. 4610 of 2024 wherein this Court directed Respondent No.2 to consider Petitioners' request and take steps in accordance with law. Thereafter, representations dated 25.04.2024 and 27.09.2024 were submitted detailing various demands for the welfare of Shia community, including establishment of separate educational institutions for Shia youth, allotment of exclusive burial grounds for Shias, protection of Shia religious sites from encroachment, nomination of a qualified Shia representative to the Legislative Council under the Governor’s quota. When there was no action taken, Petitioners are stated to have filed Writ Petition No. 30028 of 2024 which was disposed of on 02.01.2025, directing Respondents to consider the representations dated 25.04.2024 and 27.09.2024 in accordance with law. 1.4. When there was no action taken, Petitioners are stated to have filed Writ Petition No. 30028 of 2024 which was disposed of on 02.01.2025, directing Respondents to consider the representations dated 25.04.2024 and 27.09.2024 in accordance with law. 1.4. It is also stated, on 07.02.2025, Respondent No.2 rejected the representations arbitrarily and without proper application of mind, ignoring the directions of this Court. Aggrieved by the continued inaction and having no other alternative, petitioners approached this Court. 1.5. The issues raised are not individual grievances but relate to the fundamental rights of a religious minority. The State’s lack of concern violates Articles 14 and 15 as Shia Muslims are entitled to equal protection of laws without discrimination. Their right to live with dignity is compromised due to lack of basic facilities such as burial grounds, education, welfare schemes, and safety. Their rights under Articles 25–26 are impeded as Shia religious endowments and practices are neglected and not effectively protected. Articles 29–30 reinforce the constitutional obligation to safeguard minority culture—an obligation ignored by the State despite clear needs of Shia community. The failure to implement existing policies (such as G.O. Ms. 3/2016) demonstrates violation of the principles of secularism under the basic structure. 1.6. Petitioners rely on constitutional principles, statutory duties and judicial precedents to show that their reliefs are legally tenable. It is stated, in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India , (1994) 3 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that the State must accord equal treatment to all religions and sects. A writ of Mandamus is the proper remedy where authorities fail to discharge a public or statutory duty. Respondents have a clear public duty to address the community’s grievances, and their persistent neglect amounts to unconstitutional and arbitrary State inaction. 1.7. The State’s continued disregard for Shia community amounts to hostile discrimination. Despite this Court’s directions holding Petitioners’ demands worthy of consideration, the officials failed to act, violating Article 14 (arbitrariness in State action (see E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu , (1974) 4 SCC 3 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , (1978) 1 SCC 248 ). The Minorities Welfare Department and the Waqf Board owe duties toward all minorities, not solely the majority sect. The Minorities Welfare Department and the Waqf Board owe duties toward all minorities, not solely the majority sect. and denial of equal access to welfare schemes and protection of Waqf properties solely on the basis of sect is discriminatory and violates Article 15 and the basic feature of secularism. 1.8. Petitioner also states that Shia Muslims constitute a distinct “section of a religious denomination” under Article 26 and have the constitutional right to manage their own religious affairs, institutions and endowments. Respondent authorities, by monopolizing control over Shia institutions without Shia representation, violate this right. Failure to safeguard Azadari practices, processions and religious gatherings violates Article 25. Article 29 entitles every minority to conserve its distinct culture; the absence of Shia cultural centres, Urdu/Persian libraries, and community institutions reflects constitutional neglect. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner , (1978) 1 SCC 405 , held that judicial intervention is warranted where authorities abuse or fail to exercise discretion. The judgment in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226 authorizes independent investigation where local agencies are compromised. Investigating misuse of minority welfare funds and Waqf encroachments is essential for restoring rule of law and protecting constitutional rights. Though this Writ Petition does not directly challenge denial of employment, complete absence of Shia representation in government bodies, including minority welfare institutions, raises concern under Article 16(1) and 16(2). The relief sought for nomination of a Shia MLC aligns with the constitutional value of fair representation. 2. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.2, it is stated, appointment of a Shia Muslim Community member to the Telangana Legislative Council under the Governor’s Quota under Article 171(5) of the Constitution is a policy decision of the State Government. Therefore, according to this respondent, the prayer in the Writ Petition seeking such nomination is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. 2.1. It is narrated, this Court passed order dated 14.11.2024 in Writ Petition No. 30028 of 2024, directing Respondent No.2 to consider petitioners’ request for nomination of a member of the “most deprived and politically-disadvantaged Shia Muslim Community” to the Legislative Council under Article 171(5). The Court gave four weeks’ time to pass appropriate orders on petitioners’ earlier representations dated 25.04.2024 and 27.09.2024, and to communicate the decision to them. The Court gave four weeks’ time to pass appropriate orders on petitioners’ earlier representations dated 25.04.2024 and 27.09.2024, and to communicate the decision to them. In compliance with the said directions, the Government examined petitioners’ request and ultimately the above representations through Memo dated 07.02.2025, were rejected and was duly communicated to petitioners, but they have not chosen to challenge the said rejection order. Therefore, according to this respondent, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 2.2. It is stated, this Writ Petition is not maintainable, because petitioners cannot be termed as ‘interested persons’; neither they suffered any legal injury nor is there any violation or infringement of their legal or statutory rights. The State Government has been focusing on socio-economic development and educational advancement of minorities. The Government claims to provide financial assistance, scholarships, training programs, and other welfare measures for Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Parsis. Various schemes such as Shaadi Mubarak, Chief Minister’s Overseas Scholarship Scheme for Minorities, and the scheme for sponsoring minority students to premier Coaching Institutes for Civil Services are already being implemented. The allegations of petitioners that minorities are being neglected are stated to be incorrect and termed as a figment of imagination. The respondent emphasizes that the Shia community is also covered under these schemes. 2.3. The respondent states that during Muharram every year, the Government makes arrangements in Ashoorkhanas and releases funds for Sabeels, and arrangements are made for the historic/iconic Bibi-Ka-Alam procession, involving consultations with all relevant authorities. Thus, it is stated, the allegations of neglect of Shia religious practices are incorrect. It is also stated, Sri Riyazul Hassan Effendi, a Shia MLC from AIMIM, and Dr. Syed Nisar Hussain (Hyder Agha), a Shia scholar, have already been nominated earlier by the Telangana Government to represent Shia community—one in the Legislative Council, and another to the Telangana Waqf Board. Therefore, the concerns of petitioners are already addressed, and the relief sought is misconceived. 2.4 This respondent explains that nomination of MLCs is governed by Article 171(5) of the Constitution, which lays down eligibility criteria relating to special knowledge or practical experience in literature, science, art, the cooperative movement, and social service. According to him, petitioners did not enclose the methodology adopted for proposing the candidate and the summary given does not demonstrate any special achievements in any of the fields mentioned in Article 171(5). According to him, petitioners did not enclose the methodology adopted for proposing the candidate and the summary given does not demonstrate any special achievements in any of the fields mentioned in Article 171(5). Therefore, the Government found no basis for nominating the individual proposed by petitioners. 2.5. It is further stated, petitioners earlier filed Writ Petitions No. 4610, 30028 and 33733 of 2024 seeking appointment of the same candidate as MLC. These matters were considered by the government and rejected pursuant to earlier orders passed by this Court. Hence, the respondent contends that the present relief is wholly misconceived and is liable to be rejected. Petitioners have no vested right to invoke Article 226 as the relief cannot be granted in a Writ Petition. 2.6. This respondent explains composition of 40-member Telangana Legislative Council: 1) 14 members indirectly elected by the State Legislators, 2) 14 members elected by local authorities, 3) 3 from Graduates' constituencies, 4) 3 from Teachers' constituencies, and – up to 6 eminent persons nominated by the Governor under Article 171(5). This is stated to explain the constitutional mechanism and to justify the Government’s discretion. 2.7. Respondent No.2 then relies on a recent judgment in Writ Petition No. 1914 of 2025 ( Raja Reddy v. State of Telangana) , wherein this Court held that: " 8. The petitioner, who claims to be serving poor and downtrodden people, can continue to provide services and for that purpose need not seek for appointment as MLC or any nominated post. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Dasoju Sravan Kumar v/s. The Secretary to Her Excellency, The Hon'ble Governor, State of Telangana, Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad, had held that it is for the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising powers under Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India. However, it is open for the Governor to examine the issues of eligibility or disqualification of a person recommended by the Council of Ministers, to the Legislative Council”. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is sheer abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dnyadeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar , (2017) 5 SCC 496 and Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470 . 3. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is sheer abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dnyadeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar , (2017) 5 SCC 496 and Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470 . 3. Petitioner filed reply stating that Respondent No.2 appeared before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) Diary No. 34897 of 2024, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted Stay with respect to selection of M.L.C. under the Governor’s Quota. and allowed S.L.P. by setting aside the selection of two M.L.C. candidates under Governor’s Quota on the ground that procedure adopted was wrong and had misled the office of the Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare, State of Telangana. Respondents have intentionally not maintained separate Shia Waqf Board and Sunni Waqf Board administrations under the pretext of brotherhood. Even though an unconstructed building is available for allotment to Shia community, no steps have been taken for providing a separate space for Shia Waqf Board administration. There is also no Karbala House in the State of Telangana and respondents have completely failed to provide funds to Shia Muslims to give due respect to the faith of Imam Hussain A.S. Respondents have not established any separate institutions, hostels, or Hussaini Bhavans, including at Jawahar Nagar where Government land is available. They have not allotted double bedroom houses to the poor Shia community. The Shia community selects one educated person for religious services and for representing the problems of the community and appointment of such a member as M.L.C. under Article 171(5) by the Governor is possible only upon recommendation from Respondent No.2 and the Minister concerned. The Government has intentionally not obeyed the order in Writ Petition No. 4610 of 2024 and has also disobeyed the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3.1. Petitioners therefore, request the Government to give an opportunity to Shia community and recommend the name of a suitable member from their community to the Governor, so that such member may discharge his duties in accordance with the Constitutional provisions. 4. Heard Sri V.R. Mannepalli, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare on behalf of Respondent No.2, Mr. Farhan Azam Khan, learned counsel for Waqf Board and learned Government Pleader for Home on behalf of Respondent No.4. 5. 4. Heard Sri V.R. Mannepalli, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare on behalf of Respondent No.2, Mr. Farhan Azam Khan, learned counsel for Waqf Board and learned Government Pleader for Home on behalf of Respondent No.4. 5. Having considered the pleadings of both the parties, representations made by Petitioners, it is clear that petitioners have consistently raised issues relating to the collective rights and welfare of Shia Muslim community, which is a distinct religious denomination comprising approximately 10 lakh persons in Telangana, therefore, the grievances raised cannot be treated as personal or individual but as matters implicating constitutional minority protections under Articles 25, 26, 29 and 30. 6. It is to be seen, Shia community is stated to be a significant and culturally-unique and Petitioners have pleaded that despite this, they have been denied adequate representation and institutional support, including absence of separate educational institutions, burial grounds, cultural centres, hostels, Hussaini Bhavans, and a dedicated administrative mechanism for Shia Waqf matters. These allegations are not rebutted in the counter affidavit. Respondents have merely relied upon general statements regarding minority welfare schemes such as Shaadi Mubarak and the Chief Minister’s Overseas Scholarship Scheme, which are not specific to the distinct cultural and religious needs of Shia sect. Such general schemes do not address the specific constitutional rights under Articles 25, 26, 29 and 30. 7. Respondent No.2 contended that nomination of a member to the Legislative Council under Article 171(5) is a policy decision and Petitioners have no enforceable right. This Court is conscious of the fact that it cannot direct nomination of a particular individual, but Petitioners have not sought such a direction; they have only sought fair, reasoned and lawful consideration of their representations. When a Court issues a direction to ‘consider’, it imposes an obligation to apply mind, record reasons and act in good faith. This obligation arises not from Petitioners’ personal rights but from the rule of law and the requirement of non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 21, as held in E.P. Royappa’s case and Maneka Gandhi’s case (supra). 8. The Memo dated 07.02.2025, though stated to have been issued pursuant to the earlier order in Writ Petition No. 30028 of 2024, is found to be wholly mechanical. 8. The Memo dated 07.02.2025, though stated to have been issued pursuant to the earlier order in Writ Petition No. 30028 of 2024, is found to be wholly mechanical. It does not discuss Petitioners’ grievances, does not examine the constitutional protections of minorities, does not address the absence of Shia representation, does not refer to earlier Court directions, and does not provide any reasoning relating to Article 171(5). The Memo merely states a conclusion without revealing application of mind. Such an order is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 21. The Court is fortified in this conclusion by the principle laid down in Mohinder Singh Gills’s case (supra) that administrative discretion must be exercised with reasons and cannot be exercised in a vacuum. 9. Respondents have attempted to justify their inaction by claiming that Shias have already been represented through Sri Riyazul Hassan Effendi and Dr. Syed Nisar Hussain, therefore, no further representation is necessary. This argument is unsustainable. Representation under Article 171(5) is not a one-time event; it is a continuing constitutional mechanism meant to facilitate the participation of diverse groups. Moreover, such representation cannot substitute the independent constitutional obligations under Articles 25, 26, 29 and 30, particularly when Petitioners have demonstrated absence of dedicated Shia institutions and administrative structures. Further, Petitioners’ allegation that the State has intentionally not constituted separate Shia Waqf administration, has not allotted premises for the same despite availability, has not established a Karbala House, has not created cultural or religious centres, and has failed to protect Shia religious sites and practices have not been rebutted with any material. The counter affidavit merely states that Muharram arrangements are made and funds for Sabeels are provided. Such statements do not address the structural neglect of Shia community in institutional, educational and cultural areas, which fall within the ambit of Articles 29 and 30. 10. Petitioners rely upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in S.R. Bommai’s case (supra), where secularism was recognised as a basic feature, and where the State is required to treat all religious denominations equally. Denial of institutional support to one sect, while providing it to others, is inconsistent with secularism and violates Articles 14 and 15. Respondents have not produced any material showing that Shia community has been treated at par with other denominations in respect of endowments, educational facilities, or cultural institutions. Denial of institutional support to one sect, while providing it to others, is inconsistent with secularism and violates Articles 14 and 15. Respondents have not produced any material showing that Shia community has been treated at par with other denominations in respect of endowments, educational facilities, or cultural institutions. Respondents have also relied upon the judgment in Raja Reddy v. State of Telangana, but that judgment only holds that a person need not seek an MLC position to serve society. It does not prohibit the State from providing representation where a minority community is politically- disadvantaged, nor does it relieve the State from its obligation to consider such requests fairly and legally. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the case on hand. 11. It is to be seen further, respondents did not comply with earlier Court directions, particularly in Writ Petitions No. 4610 and 30028 of 2024. In these Writ Petitions, Respondent No.2 was directed to consider representations within a specified period. Not complying with the said directions is illegal and the said conduct itself justifies issuance of mandamus. 12. Petitioners also pleaded that Respondent No.2 involved in irregularities in the selection of MLCs under Article 171(5), which were set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 34897 of 2024. This Court finds that this context strengthens Petitioners’ contention that the decision- making process lacked fairness, transparency and legality, and that the impugned Memo was passed without application of mind. 13. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that Petitioners have made out a clear case for interference. 14. The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of, directing Respondents to reconsider Petitioners’ representations in accordance with law and as per the directions issued in the earlier Writ Petitions. No costs. 15. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.